Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2017.01.03 Burlingame City Council January 3, 2017 Approved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting on January 3, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by Ken Putnam. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION City Attorney reported that direction was given but no reportable action was taken. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Ortiz reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. PRESENTATION OF PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING EXECUTIVE CERTIFICATE TO POLICE CHIEF Manuel Alvarez from the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (“POST”) stated that the Commission sets the standards for police officer and dispatcher hiring and training across the state. Mr. Alvarez discussed the fact that training is not mandated for chiefs or sheriffs but that Chief Wollman took the 80 hour optional course. Mr. Alvarez presented Chief Wollman with the POST executive certificate. Congratulations to Chief Wollman on earning his executive certificate. Burlingame City Council January 3, 2017 Approved Minutes 2 7. PUBLIC COMMENT Burlingame resident Ken Putnam asked Council to consider density around downtown Burlingame in the updates to the general plan. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR City Attorney Kane in compliance with SB 1436 reviewed consent item 8f that amended the City Manager’s employment agreement to provide a salary increase of 3%. Mayor Ortiz asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Brownrigg pulled item 8e. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to approve 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d, 8f, 8g and 8h; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 19, 2016 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council’s approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2016. b. CONFIRMATION OF THE MAYOR’S COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS FOR 2017 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council’s approval of the Mayor’s Council Assignments for 2017. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPOINTING BARBARA A. DILLION AS AN INTERIM EMPLOYEE UNDER CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 21221(h) City Manager Goldman asked Council to adopt Resolution Number 1-2017. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO MARINA MECHANICAL FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HVAC IMPORVEMENTS, CITY PROJECT NO. 84330, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DPW Murtuza asked Council to adopt Resolution Number 2-2017. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT WITH IPS GROUP, INC., FOR THE PROCUREMENT AND INSTALLATION OF SMART PARKING METERS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, CITY PROJECT NO. 84410, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT DPW Murtuza asked Council to adopt Resolution Number 3-2017. Burlingame City Council January 3, 2017 Approved Minutes 3 Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated he pulled this item to inform the public that the City would be installing smart meters in the downtown business districts. He stated that these meters would be put on streets and not in parking lots. He explained that this would not include parking lots just street parking as the City was researching different options for parking lots such as pay boxes. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that one of his main concerns was the 13 cent transaction fee for credit cards. He stated that this was a large overhead when one took into consideration the cost of parking. He asked what assurances staff had that the City was receiving the best deal in respect to the transaction fee. DPW Murtuza stated that staff vetted the credit card fees associated with all companies that submitted proposals. He stated that the costs were very comparable across the board. He explained that a majority of the cities use the same vendors for credit card fees. He stated that if the credit card usage gets higher the City can renegotiate their contract and rates. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if San Francisco was paying the same rate. DPW Murtuza stated that he hasn’t talked to San Francisco about this but that he knows their vendor and the rates are the same. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked how staff came up with the suggested list of streets for smart meter installation. DPW Murtuza stated that these are the streets in the downtown area and in the Broadway Commercial Area. Councilmember Keighran asked about the timeline for when DPW Murtuza would bring back options for meters in the parking lots. DPW Murtuza stated that currently he does not have a timeline but that he believes this item would be brought to Council in the next couple of years. Councilmember Keighran asked if smart meters would be installed on the side streets of Broadway. DPW Murtuza replied in the negative. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated he felt the City might be putting in too many meters. He explained that with respect to Broadway, as staff stated in the report, the City may lose money on Broadway meters if a majority of people use credit cards. He asked if the Broadway merchants asked for smart meters and knew that parking rates may need to be raised as a result of the high credit card transaction fee. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson talked about the fact that outside the scope of the parking meters, IPS’ proposal stated that they would work with the City to set up meters that would be used as fundraising tools for a charity of the City’s choosing. She stated that this was something the City should look into as it might be a good way to raise funds for organizations like Call Primrose. Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 2-2017; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Burlingame City Council January 3, 2017 Approved Minutes 4 f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF THE CITY MANAGER’S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE A SALARY INCREASE OF 3% City Attorney Kane asked Council to adopt Resolution Number 4-2017. g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES FOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT FUNCTION City Attorney Kane asked Council to adopt Resolution Number 5-2017. h. APPROVAL OF THE PURCHASE OF MAX SOLUTIONS FIELD SCHEDULING SOFTWARE Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council’s approval of the purchase of Max Solutions Field Scheduling Software. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING AND INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY FROM R-4 (HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO CAR (CALIFORNIA DRIVE AUTO ROW) AND CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO DESIGNATE PROPERTY FROM R-4 INCENTIVE DISTRICT TO CALIFORNIA DRIVE MIXED USE DISTRICT; A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA); DESIGN REVIEW; AND A VESTING TENATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR A NEW AUTOMOBILE SERVICE FACILITY AT AN EXISTING AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 85 CALIFORNIA DRIVE CDD Meeker presented the staff report concerning the introduction of an ordinance rezoning property and considering a general plan amendment. He stated that the applicant, Putnam, is proposing to construct a new service facility at its existing automobile dealership at 85 California Drive. He explained that in order to accommodate the new service facility, a portion of the attached property owned by the Putnam automobile group would need to be rezoned from R-4 to CAR. He showed the property lines and how a portion of Putnam’s property is currently zoned R-4. He explained that this piece of property does not have any structures on it and is currently being utilized as a car lot. CDD Meeker further stated that if this property was rezoned from R-4 to CAR it would still allow residential units above the ground floor. Councilmember Beach asked if CAR zoning allowed for other retail uses besides automobile on the ground floor. CDD Meeker stated that it would under the conditional use permit. Mayor Ortiz asked the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer complied. Burlingame City Council January 3, 2017 Approved Minutes 5 Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the Ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Ortiz opened the public hearing for public comment. Burlingame resident Kristen Parks discussed her concern that the rezoning would take away the opportunity to create affordable housing. The applicant Ken Putnam discussed the lot and stated that it currently is used as a car lot with no plans for construction. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if Mr. Putnam considered developing workforce housing above the dealerships. Mr. Putnam replied in the negative. A discussion was had as to what the permitted building height is in CAR zone and whether it would make financial sense to build housing for workforce there. Vice Mayor Brownrigg discussed the need to find ways to assist businesses whose workforce travel great distances to get to work. He stated that workforce housing was one such option. Councilmember Keighran discussed previous conservations the City had about encouraging housing above the car dealerships. She gave the example of San Francisco and the housing that was created above the dealerships on Van Ness. Councilmember Beach discussed how it is a minimal change and that CAR zoning allows for the addition of housing. She stated that workforce housing is an important conversation and was glad that the Council considered it when discussing the rezoning for this item. Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to bring the proposed ordinance back at the next meeting; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. b. PUBLIC HEARING AND INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, AMENDING TITLE 21 – HISTORIC RESOURCE PRESERVATION OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING PROVISIONS DEFINING “ADAPTIVE RE-USE” AND OUTLINING PROCEDURES FOR GRANTING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ADAPTIVE RE-USE OF HISTORIC RESOURCES WITHIN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD Meeker presented the staff report concerning a proposed ordinance amending Title 21 – Historic Resource Preservation of the Burlingame Municipal Code by adding provisions defining “Adaptive Re-Use” and outlining procedures for granting approval of a conditional use permit for adaptive re-use of historic resources within the City of Burlingame. Burlingame City Council January 3, 2017 Approved Minutes 6 Mr. Meeker explained that on June 16, 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1899 adding Title 21 – Historic Resources Preservation to the Code. As adopted, the ordinance establishes a historic preservation program applicable to any property deemed historic within the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. The program established a series of incentives available to owners of historic properties to encourage the preservation of designated structures. He explained that to date, no property owner has taken advantage of the program. The incentives include Mills Act Contract, Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives, use of the California Historic Building Code, Historic Variances and fee reduction. Mr. Meeker continued by explaining that as is frequently the case with historic resources, the purpose for which a structure was initially built, may not be one that is appropriate or desirable in the present setting. He added that conversion of such a structure to a use that would be permitted under current zoning regulations can often result in the need for modifications to the property that negatively impact those character-defining features that supported designation as a historic resource in the first place. Mr. Meeker explained that the proposed amendment would define Adaptive Reuse as “repurposing a designated historic resource for different uses or functions than those for which it was originally designed while retaining the original historic features of the resource.” He explained that the Conditional Use Permits process would be used to guarantee that the use qualified as an adaptive reuse. He stated that the Planning Commission considered this amendment and recommended approval. Councilmember Keighran asked if staff believed that the reason no-one had used the historic preservation ordinance yet was because of the lack of flexibility. CDD Meeker responded that he believed this to be part of the problem. He gave the example of an old historic mansion that individuals wanted to turn into a B&B. Councilmember Keighran sked if ADA requirements had anything to do with people not undertaking this process. CDD Meeker replied that this could have an impact. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated he approved of the incentive based approach. He asked in respect to the Mills Act, if the tax incentive applied to the entire property or only the portion that was considered historic. Vice Mayor Brownrigg gave the example of the post office in Burlingame and the lot it sits on. CDD Meeker stated it wouldn’t be interpreted that broadly as the intention is only to preserve the structure that is the focus. Councilmember Colson voiced her support of the amendment stating that she had seen it used in other communities to benefit schools and historic buildings. Mayor Ortiz asked the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed Ordinance. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer complied. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Ortiz opened the public hearing for public comment. No one spoke. Burlingame City Council January 3, 2017 Approved Minutes 7 Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to bring back the proposed ordinance to the next meeting; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. c. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13.36.040 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE AND ESTABLISH A ‘TWO-HOUR PARKING’ RESTRICTION FROM 2:00 P.M. TO 6:00 P.M., MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, ON CAROLAN AVENUE FROM NORTH LANE TO OAK GROVE AVENUE DPW Murtuza presented the staff report concerning a proposed ordinance that would establish a two-hour parking restriction from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, along both sides of Carolan Avenue from North Lane to Oak Grove Avenue. Mr. Murtuza gave a background of the proposed ordinance stating that the amendment originated from the concerns of students and Burlingame High School. He explained that both had expressed their concern about the lack of student parking, the inconsistent restrictions on Carolan Avenue and that students were getting cited. Mr. Murtuza explained that currently there is a two-hour parking restriction on the west side of the street from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; and no parking restriction on the east side of the street. He explained that the amendment to change the on-street parking restrictions was the collaboration of the Police Department and Public Works. He explained that the matter was discussed at the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission meetings on October 13, 2016 and November 10, 2016. Police Chief Wollman attended both meetings and answered questions from the Commissioners. He stated that TSP Commission unanimously recommended the amendment. Mr. Murtuza explained that the Police and Public Works believe that the amendments will address the needs expressed by the students and school staff while being consistent and fair in terms of enforcing parking restrictions. He explained that the proposed change would allow students to continue parking on-street during school session and after school activities without fear of getting a parking citation, while acting as a deterrent for employees and commuters that try to park along this section of Carolan Avenue. Councilmember Colson asked for the number of on-campus parking spaces at Burlingame High School. Mr. Murtuza stated that there are 1,421 students with 700 eligible to drive and 110 parking spots with 80 reserved for staff. He added that there are 126 parking spots on Carolan Avenue. Councilmember Colson stated that these numbers highlight the problem and that the amendment should help to alleviate the issue. As well, she stated that the BHS athletic department will need to work with students who drive to school on the day of away games, so that they can move their car before leaving. DPW Murtuza stated that the school liaison will be working with the school on these issues. As well, he stated that they had not received any complaints about students parking in the neighborhoods. Burlingame City Council January 3, 2017 Approved Minutes 8 Councilmember Beach asked if the TSP Commission when discussing the proposed ordinance considered its impact on traffic and pedestrian safety. As well, she asked if TSP Commission had discussed the environmental impact and student health factors associated with the proposed ordinance. DPW Murtuza stated that TSP Commission always considers traffic and pedestrian safety but that the other issues that Councilmember Beach discussed were outside the scope of TSP Commission. City Attorney Kane added that the proposed ordinance does not rise to a level that requires a formal study and a CEQA analysis. Councilmember Beach stated that what she wanted was a discussion/analysis of the benefits of a parking program versus eliminating parking restrictions in the BHS neighborhood. She stated that she wondered if it would reduce the amount of parking in that area and whether it would help encourage more students to seek other forms of transportation to school. City Manager Goldman stated that in her regular meetings with Superintendent Skelly, he discussed his interest in increasing biking to the high school with bike paths and bike racks. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if the road diet for Carolan would preserve all the parking spots. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Keighran asked if parking permits were originally considered in that area. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative but stated that after studying this option it was not recommended. Mayor Ortiz asked the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed Ordinance. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer complied. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Ortiz opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Councilmember Colson thanked the Police Department for their efforts in ensuring traffic and pedestrian safety around the school. She made a motion to bring back the proposed ordinance at the next meeting. Councilmember Beach stated that it was the job of Council to not only look at what’s best for one group but what is best for the City. Accordingly, she stated that she was concerned that by amending the parking hours on Carolan Avenue, that the City is making it easier and more appealing for students to drive and park at school. She asked if this should be a goal of the City or if they should instead try to discourage teenagers from driving the short distance to school. She discussed the side effects of having more student drivers including an increase in traffic and greenhouse gas emissions. She stated that while the policy is addressing the concerns of the high school students, that there are bigger questions the Council should be thinking about. She stated she would like to see the TSP Commission think about a parking program or other ways to reduce the number of cars on the street. Councilmember Colson’s motion was seconded by Councilmember Keighran. Burlingame City Council January 3, 2017 Approved Minutes 9 Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated he understood Councilmember Beach’s concerns. However, he stated in his opinion the City isn’t adding parking here, they are restoring parking. He explained that the City only began enforcing parking on this street when the City became concerned about Caltrain commuters using the street for long term parking. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the proposed ordinance would continue to deter the commuters from parking on this street, while allowing for student parking. Councilmember Beach discussed the idea that a majority of Burlingame is flat and therefore the school and City should be encouraging students to bike to school. Councilmember Colson encouraged Councilmember Beach to work directly with the school and student green clubs to see what their ideas were to encourage students to bicycle or carpool to school. Mayor Ortiz called the motion to vote. The motion passed by voice vote; 4-1 (Councilmember Beach voted against). 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2016 Finance Director Augustine presented the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (“CAFR”) for the fiscal year 2015-16. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the Audit Committee (Councilmember Colson and himself) wanted to introduce this item in part because of the long discussion that recently occurred about City bookkeeping. As well, he stated that in reviewing the CAFR it is clear that while the City has made good investments that there are significant expenses ahead. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that what the Audit Committee wanted to share with the Council and the community was the profound thumbs up that the outside auditors gave the Finance Department. Councilmember Colson discussed how the City’s new auditors, Maze & Associates were well versed in government auditing and therefore the high rating that the City and Finance Department received meant even more. Finance Director Augustine thanked the Audit Committee and conducted a brief a review of the CAFR explaining what was in each section of the report. In looking at the Financial Highlights in the General Fund she stated that general fund revenues saw a 6.86% increase over the prior year. She stated that property taxes were up 5.8% and Transient Occupancy Tax was up 10%. She stated that most of these increases were anticipated. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked about the $18 million being transferred out of the General Fund. Finance Director Augustine stated that a majority of it was going to CIP funds. She stated that approximately $6 million went to debt service. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that this slide could be confusing for the public Burlingame City Council January 3, 2017 Approved Minutes 10 to understand as it could mislead people to believe the City had $20 million in surplus when really this money was being utilized in different funds like CIP. Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Keighran thanked Vice Mayor Brownrigg, Councilmember Colson and the Finance Department for their hard work on this item. Councilmember Beach thanked Vice Mayor Brownrigg and Councilmember Colson for their hard work and stated that as a result of their financial backgrounds they were the right individuals for the Audit Committee. Mayor Ortiz asked if there was any specific mention about Proposition 218 and the City’s compliance with Proposition 218 in the CAFR. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that it was his understanding that this wasn’t the purview of the audit. Finance Director Augustine stated that the auditors do check for general compliance with regulations and tax law but only to the extent that there was a material discrepancy in reporting of which there was none. Mayor Ortiz made a cautionary statement about the TOT and how it had doubled since 2011. He reminded the public that the City needed to be cautious with its funds as the down turn in the economy could happen again. Councilmember Colson discussed the analysis in the CAFR that the pension liability increased by $5.2 million. She stated that this wasn’t a result of the City not paying down its pension liabilities but rather the liability is influenced by a number of factors including the actual investment returns the City receives from CalPERS as well as the assumed rate of investment CalPERS believes it will receive in the future. She stated that right now CalPERS has about a 7.5% investment return assumption but if that is moved to 8.5% or down to 6.5% the liabilities move by about twenty million dollars. She stated that there is discussion right now at CalPERS about reducing the assumed rate of investment return to 6.5% which would more accurately reflect what they have been investing. She stated that if they do so then the pension liability is going to jump to about $64 million. She stated that this is an important number for the City to watch. Vice Mayor Brownrigg agreed with Councilmember Colson and stated that the forecast had already been reduced to 7% and he stated that this would be discussed in the upcoming budget cycle. He stated that these are big issues that the City will need to consider. Finance Director Augustine stated that the sensitivity analysis that Councilmember Colson discussed is note 10 in the CAFR. City Manager Goldman stated that she believed CalPERS had already taken some of the steps to reduce the rate. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to accept the CAFR; seconded by Vice Mayor Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Burlingame City Council January 3, 2017 Approved Minutes 11 b. DISCUSSION OF COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE AND RESIDENTIAL HOUSING IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDIES Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner presented the staff report on commercial linkage fee and residential housing impact fee nexus studies. He stated that this was the first opportunity for the City Council to consider housing impact fees as a tool to support affordable workforce housing. Planning Manager Gardiner explained that as part of the San Mateo County “21 Elements” multi- jurisdictional effort, a Commercial Linkage Fee Nexus Study and Residential Impact Fee Nexus Study was prepared for the City. Mr. Gardiner stated that included in the staff report are tables that outline different municipalities’ decisions on using commercial linkage and/or housing impact fees. Mr. Gardiner introduced Sujata Srivastava a Principal from Strategic Economics, to present on the nexus studies. Sujata Srivastava introduced the topic by providing context on where housing impact fees and commercial linkage fees fit in the overall framework of how typical jurisdictions in San Mateo County provide affordable housing. She explained that it is important to distinguish that the fees can be used to create workforce housing and not senior housing or homeless shelters. She explained that pursuant to the California Mitigation Act, the nexus study is required and it must show the relation between the new development and the impact that it has on demand for affordable housing. Therefore, the theory behind commercial linkage fees is that when new commercial space opens there is a need for new workers which creates a need for affordable workforce housing. She stated that the housing impact fee is something that has become utilized by more local jurisdictions because of court decisions that made it difficult to use inclusionary zoning and the response to the decline of redevelopment housing. She stated that the theory behind housing impact fees is that when new housing units are developed, there becomes a need for more commercial development (grocery stores, coffee shops, etc) which creates a need for new workers and thereby creates a need for affordable workforce housing. She explained that in San Mateo they measure the affordability gap of what households can afford to buy or rent and the cost of building a new housing unit. She stated that the gap ranged between $280,000 for very low income to $175,000 for moderate income units. Ms. Srivastava went on to explain that in developing recommended fees for Burlingame, they compiled a financial feasibility analysis, looked at existing permits and impact fees (building permit, road, storm drain school, etc) and compared fees to other cities. In comparing fees with other cities she discussed how the fees associated with office/R&D/medical offices usually have higher fees than retail and hotel because it is more financially feasible. As well, she explained that there is usually a minimum threshold before a fee is required. Councilmember Keighran asked about the current $17 fee per square foot that the report states the City has and asked what that fee includes. Mr. Gardiner and Ms Sirvastava stated that they would need to get back to Burlingame City Council January 3, 2017 Approved Minutes 12 her on that number. However, they added that the fee would include building, permits, school and traffic fees. Councilmember Keighran asked how this fee compared to other cities. Ms. Sirvastava stated that cities really differ as some have art or parks and recreation fees. She stated that there really isn’t a hard and fast rule on what the fee would be. Councilmember Keighran stated that this would make it hard to compare fees between cities. She stated she wanted to know what the average fee is in comparison to other cities. Mr. Gardiner stated that staff would come back with more comparable information. Councilmember Keighran asked if single family attached homes as defined in the report are townhouses. Mr. Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson asked if they implemented a fee what would the demarcation be to determine what projects that are already in the pipeline would need to pay a linkage fee. CDD Meeker stated that they would need to confer with the City Attorney. City Attorney Kane stated that there are general points when rights vest, and therefore staff would review an appropriate point in a development’s progress to define as the cutoff. Councilmember Colson asked how the funds from the fees are invested and how they are utilized. CDD Meeker stated that they would be placed in an impact fee account and would be limited in usage to the provision of affordable housing. City Attorney Kane stated it is limited to the purpose of supporting workforce housing but that some cities are looking at hybrid models where they are used for retention of existing stock. However, she stated it would need to be analyzed carefully to ensure that the City is in compliance with the law. Councilmember Keighran asked if the funds could be used for rent subsidies. City Attorney Kane stated that she would need to review the law. Councilmember Beach stated her appreciation for the regional approach to the study. She asked as the City considers imposing different linkage fees, if some cities had considered giving incentives to developers who will be paying these fees. CDD Meeker stated that giving incentives to increase density is something that the City already has the ability to do. However, if the City wanted to provide the ability to draw a distinction between developers who are paying prevailing wage versus those who are not, that might be an opportunity to develop a distinction between who will pay the fee and who will not. City Attorney Kane stated that the City must be very careful in maintaining the integrity of the nexus. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the reports provided a lot of dense information. He discussed the 800,000 square foot development at 301 Airport and stated that if the City used Ms. Srivastava’s numbers, the City would have received $16 million in fees. He went on to explain that what he would like more information on if the City used the recommended fees what the estimated capital would be and what ways the City could utilize those funds. Burlingame City Council January 3, 2017 Approved Minutes 13 Councilmember Keighran stated that while she didn’t think the large developments would have issues with the fees she was concerned about small developments. She asked the staff to research minimum thresholds and sliding scales for fees. Councilmember Keighran discussed the fact that pursuant to the report, the recommended fees for Burlingame were higher than the impact fees of many cities. In particular, she asked staff to review San Carlos’ impact fees, as they had been implemented a few years ago. Therefore, she asked the staff to find out if the city had seen a decrease or increase in development and what sort of funding San Carlos had been able to amass for affordable housing. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if an individual turned two units into four units if they would need to pay a housing impact fee. Planning Manager Gardiner replied in the affirmative stating that the individual would be paying a housing impact fee based on the net difference. Mayor Ortiz opened the item for public comment. Burlingame resident Leora Tanjuatco from the Housing Leadership Council thanked the Council for taking on this issue. Burlingame resident Cynthia Cornell discussed her support for higher commercial linkage fees and stated that she would like the Council to consider lower housing impact fees. Mayor Ortiz closed public comment. Councilmember Keighran discussed her concern that the fees were high for residential and low for commercial. She stated that she would have done it the other way, as it is the commercial development that is bringing people to the Peninsula. As well, she asked if there were cities that had just done commercial fees and not residential. She stated she didn’t want to discourage the building of housing and therefore would like to see more of a focus on the commercial. Councilmember Colson agreed with Councilmember Keighran stating that she could see the linkage between commercial development and the need for workforce housing. However, she stated that the residential nexus study made assumptions that she didn’t find as compelling. Accordingly, she stated she supported the commercial linkage fees. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he did think it seemed like the recommended $40 a square foot residential impact fee in comparison to other cities fee of $17 to $20 a square foot was too high. However, he stated that housing developers should not get a pass but instead an incentive structure should be constructed. He discussed the idea that if a certain percentage of the units in the development were below market rate, the fee could be waived. Councilmember Beach stated that while it is not a direct nexus that the City needs to be mindful of transportation needs as well. Burlingame City Council January 3, 2017 Approved Minutes 14 Mayor Ortiz summarized by stating that Council all agreed that the City needed to pursue this issue and that the City needed to set the fees in a way that does not discourage housing development. He asked that staff come back to Council with findings on what the funds collected in other cities were, options the City has for spending those funds, sliding tiers for smaller projects and larger fees for commercial versus residential. Councilmember Colson added that the Council and staff should involve citizen and developer input in this process. CDD Meeker stated that he had collected the questions and concerns of Council and staff would be working on presenting Council with answers at a later date. c. IMPLEMENTATION OF A PILOT PROGRAM TO INTRODUCE A 15 MPH SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT ALONG QUESADA WAY BETWEEN TROUSDALE DRIVE AND DAVIS DRIVE DPW Murtuza presented the staff report on the implementation of a pilot program to introduce a 15 MPH school zone speed limit along Quesada Way between Trousdale Drive and Davis Drive. He stated that the California Vehicle Code authorizes cities to adopt a 15 MPH prima facie limit in a residential area. He stated that the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission discussed the pilot program and recommended its implementation. DPW Murtuza added that Burlingame School District supported the program. Councilmember Beach asked if the 500 foot limitation had to end at Davis Drive. DPW Murtuza stated he would see if it could be extended further. Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Colson made a motion to approve the pilot program; seconded by Vice Mayor Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no future agenda items. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There were no acknowledgements. Burlingame City Council January 3, 2017 Approved Minutes 15 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 9:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk